Since the current DVD release of "Passion" is as they say "bare bones", will there be some kind of lavishly featured version of the movie coming out in the near future? or is this all we are going to get? I am heavily conflicted on whether I should immediately run out and get the DVD as is or wait until futher notice? Has anyone heard anything on this matter?
If I buy it is for entertainment. That's why this movie has actors in it. Actors perform for audiences therefore they want to entertain the audience. Since the DVD has no special features I'm losing interest. If there is a future release with extra features I might be interested again. Until then.....I'll save my money.
"Well gibson diddnt make the film for entertainment"
That's obvious when watching the film, it's far to boring and redundant for anyone to consider entertaining.
While everyone was out wasting their money on something they'll never watch, I purchased what I consider to be the most entertaining and interesting thing to be associated with The Trashion of the Christ - "The Passion of the Jew" DVD today. I'll actually watch this numerous times, thus getting my moneys worth.
the passion wasnt meant to be your conventional movie. Of course if you are not religous, the film is going to be boring to you, unless you like good filmaking or get off on brutality. the movie was meant for everyone,but not everyone will be able to understand the meaning. If you want an accurate recreation of what the Bible states, then the Passion is a good way to learn or get a more visual feeling for the passion. the movie doesnt speak only to religous people though, Like the Bible it is for everyone and is about Humanity more than it is about God or Jesus.
Holy Bulony Backfire,
You really don't like "The Passion...", I suggest you read the Reel review of it. At first, they gave the movie 1.5 out of 4, but then when all of the "talk" died down they gave it a 4 out of 4.
Just like me and, I assume, you, the person reviewing the film has no affinity for...uh... divinity.
http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=138785&buy=open&PID=10114306&Tab=reviews&CID=18#tabs
I have to admit it does get boring at times but it makes up for it when they do the flogging and crusifixtion."A not job filmaker" haha how could you call Mel Gibson a nutjob filmaker?He has made the most accurate and stunning portrayal of the final hours of Jesus Christ out there,he's achieved what all the low-bugdet Jesus flicks and made-for-tv-movies tried to do but failed.Even though I see the movie as entertainment it was made to inform and educate and he did it well.I know more about what Jesus went through now than the bible or a Jesus video could've told or showed me.
"You really don't like "The Passion...", I suggest you read the Reel review of it. At first, they gave the movie 1.5 out of 4, but then when all of the "talk" died down they gave it a 4 out of 4."
Woopty do, that just proves they opinions are shallow and easily persuaded. And I could care less about reviews, I don't need to read reviews to know that I loathed this movie.
"A not job filmaker" haha how could you call Mel Gibson a nutjob filmaker?He has made the most accurate and stunning portrayal of the final hours of Jesus Christ out there,he's achieved what all the low-bugdet Jesus flicks and made-for-tv-movies tried to do but failed."
Oh, wonderful. So a high budget movie achieves it's purpose better then TV movies and college films. Wow, that's amazing. Name another movie that focuses SOLEY on Jesus's execution and death? Most other films about Jesus at least attempt to show something worthy of watching. "People need to stop concentrating on how Jesus died and care about what he taught when he was alive." Too quote South Park.
"Woopty do, that just proves they opinions are shallow and easily persuaded. And I could care less about reviews, I don't need to read reviews to know that I loathed this movie. "
Uh, No.
You don't need a review "to know that" you "loathed this movie".
All I was trying to do, was to give you some kind of insight, a counterbalance, some may call it, to an argument which, in all honestly, has absolutely no substance to it other than the film in question is "boring" or “preachy” or some other banal description of a movie, which has undoubtedly moved more peoples lives completely, than it has done wrong to some. I just walked into this movie, expecting a good film, and you know what, that is exactly what I got. With all said and done, I am still looking for something to "counterbalance" air.
Even the beloved episode of South Park can't conjure up any valuable comments against the film, other than Mel Gibson is insane. And if you watch the end of that episode, any infant to mentally challenged forms of mice know that: "YES", violence is a powerful tool to provoke and give a message, and only some have truly harnessed it's power. Uh.
From movies about Vietnam to this beastly film, violence has really pervaded throughout history and it needs to serve a message. There is a little known movie about Vietnam during the war, which was shot guerrilla style. It is still the most powerful film ever put upon celluloid, some call it, and when it was first shown in public, I think it was an award show, it received a monstrous, thunderous standing ovation followed by a monumental sigh. The entire movie showed atrocities of war, and certain sequences of that have changed people lives, for the better of course. Much like Baraka, violence is a truly awe-inspiring narrative.
Is a film being boring and preachy not a valid reason to dislike it? Seems to be as good a reason as any to dislike a film. I watch films to be entertained, if I want to be preached at I'll go to church.
Yeah, violence is a powerful tool and yadda yadda, but when it's the driving force of a dramatic film, it becomes tiresome and in the end - didactic and repetitive.
South threw up plenty of valid arguments.
-The film was a snuff film - valid argument there. It was a snuff film, it was a film thats primary goal was to show a man dying and suffering. That is a snuff film. But, oh wait, it was about Jesus, so it's an "educational experience" now. What a crock.
-The film was antisemetic. This is hard to argue, considering it does show almost every jew as an evil, spiteful person hell bent on causing as much pain and suffering as possible. It doesn't bother developing character for any of them, they were all simple, mindless villians. I know, I know, the story is told this way. All that proves is that the story itself is also antisemetic.
-The film was repetitive and redundant. This was insinuated in the scenes in which the kids were watching the film, when we heard constant whipping and screaming. This was of course overlysimplified, but it was still a valid point. The whole movie is proposed of torturing jesus in one way or another - either verbally, or physically. With flash back scenes that were few and far between.
All of these are extremely valid points against the film. And the most valid point is the quote I stole earlier. People shouldn't concentrate on Jesus's death. Anyone who has to see a man get tortured for two hours to "reaffirm their faith" is a sap and probably not much of a Christian to begin with. It's his teachings, and what he did during his life that should be important to people, not his death.
Okay, you know what, I think this continuous argument between us, has got to end sometime.
But anywho, this is somewhat fun.
"Is a film being boring and preachy not a valid reason to dislike it? Seems to be as good a reason as any to dislike a film. I watch films to be entertained, if I want to be preached at I'll go to church"
My point with my last post was that the film wasn't preachy at all nor was it boring. It was intense when it had to be and was realistic as to, if a man, brutally flogged, who then has to carry his heavy cross across a long distance keeps falling, is perceived as boring to you? Well, then, okay. I can't really say all that much about it. It is also one of the more nihilistic films I have seen in a while.
The New York Times said this:
"The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it."
"Yeah, violence is a powerful tool and yadda yadda, but when it's the driving force of a dramatic film, it becomes tiresome and in the end - didactic and repetitive. "
What is wrong with being didactic? All this means is that it is focused in what it wants to say. It is more or less a play on film and shows what it has to show in the way it wants to say it, and, frankly, what movie doesn't do that?
"-The film was a snuff film - valid argument there. It was a snuff film, it was a film thats primary goal was to show a man dying and suffering. That is a snuff film."
Okay. Coming from someone who has seen war crimes and jail executions on film for purposes of schooling, I know what a snuff film is. My friend, "The Passion of the Christ" is no snuff film, much less a glorified one. And even if it was on some insignificant level in some far off universe, that is completely irrelevant due to the above description of violence in Cinema. Let's keep on topic here.
"-The film was antisemetic. This is hard to argue, considering it does show almost every jew as an evil, spiteful person hell bent on causing as much pain and suffering as possible. It doesn't bother developing character for any of them, they were all simple, mindless villians. I know, I know, the story is told this way. All that proves is that the story itself is also antisemetic."
Again, this film was to show more or less a snap shot of what may or may not have happened in history. There is no character
development of any character throughout the film. Uh, also with that argument, Schindler's List is anti-German. Black Hawk Down is anti-Somalian. Menace II Society is anti-black. Jurassic Park is anti-Dinosaur.
The rest of your post is repetitive, and I want to stop before mine becomes so as well.
Originally posted by BackFire
The film was antisemetic. This is hard to argue, considering it does show almost every jew as an evil, spiteful person hell bent on causing as much pain and suffering as possible. It doesn't bother developing character for any of them, they were all simple, mindless villians. I know, I know, the story is told this way. All that proves is that the story itself is also antisemetic.People shouldn't concentrate on Jesus's death. Anyone who has to see a man get tortured for two hours to "reaffirm their faith" is a sap and probably not much of a Christian to begin with. It's his teachings, and what he did during his life that should be important to people, not his death.
Well, anti-semiticism is a sin, and for Gibson to blatantly ignore that, and devote an entire movie to a man who died for said sins seems kind of ironic, given you understand what semitism really is.
The Jews and Pilate himself were unfairly under developed, thus came off as semitic. Under Roman law, Jesus the Christ was a lawbreaker. Contrary to popular belief, it was Pontius Pilate that did the dirty work, having his savagely beaten and scourged, only to stiff the Jews with the bill, in crucifixtion, as he literally washed his hands clean of any wrong doing.
Keep in mind, it was the Roman Empire that had already slaughtered over 1 million Jews before, and had many more cast out of Judea. Romans had control over them, so the Jews had no choice but to take the blame for his crucifixation, which didn't even matter, given Christ was willing to sacrifice himself for our (what were then both his and our supposed) sins.
It just didn't translate fairly, IMO, and sparked some debate.
That said. Christ teachings aren't the focus of this movie, it's his personal passion. His sacrifice should be equally as important, and the movie serves as the most complete and effective reminder of what he endured for the sake of our (Christian and Non-Christian alike) sins.
"What is wrong with being didactic? All this means is that it is focused in what it wants to say. It is more or less a play on film and shows what it has to show in the way it wants to say it, and, frankly, what movie doesn't do that?"
Right, but when the film forgoes entertainment in order to slam us in the head with it's message, that is a problem. This film was boring, I don't see how it couldn't be. It was repetitve, repetition is boring.
"Okay. Coming from someone who has seen war crimes and jail executions on film for purposes of schooling, I know what a snuff film is. My friend, "The Passion of the Christ" is no snuff film, much less a glorified one. And even if it was on some insignificant level in some far off universe, that is completely irrelevant due to the above description of violence in Cinema. Let's keep on topic here."
I've been on topic this whole time, don't know where that comment came from.
And the difference between The Passion and the types of films you mentioned above is that those films know what they are. They don't claim to be anything else. This film was NOT powerful, it was NOT dramtic. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a film to be dramatic if a film has no character development of any kind. If you don't care about whats happening on screen, then drama is impossible. Holy shit, common sense there. Also, it is not irrelevent because of your little violence description. A snuff film is not entertaining to normal people. It is a video of a person getting killed or tortured. That is exactly what The Passion is. And I found it glorified because of it's use of dramatic music. Using music of any kind trivializes and glorifies the scenes because it reminds us that it's nothing more then a movie.
"Again, this film was to show more or less a snap shot of what may or may not have happened in history. There is no character
development of any character throughout the film. Uh, also with that argument, Schindler's List is anti-German. Black Hawk Down is anti-Somalian. Menace II Society is anti-black. Jurassic Park is anti-Dinosaur."
Yep, and it's still antisemetic. Just because it was a "snap shot" into a possible occurance doesn't change anything. The bottom line - The film showed ALL jews on screen in a negative light. The other films you mentioned did not show ALL members of their ethnicity in a negative light. Schindlers list is Anti-Nazi, if you remember correctly, a german guy saved people in that movie. Menace 2 Society shows some good black people. In Jurassic Park a dinosour saves the people from another dinasour, ect. Even though these movies did show most of the member of the ethnicity in a bad light, not ALL of them, as the Passion did.